Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3759299" data-attributes="member: 30001">I should have emphasized *generally* and *interested* in what I'm saying.  It's not a matter of their being a natural division, it's a consequence of people doing what interests them.  I didn't think it was all that elitist to suggest that in certain areas of life people that care less about them tend to be led by those who do.  Of course there are people who care alot about the game on both sides of this particular issue.  But what I'm addressing is what kind of weight to give to the mass of partially interested people - IMO the greatest long-term good doesn't always correspond to the greatest numbers.Oh, well I wouldn't mind seeing wizards evened out according to their resource depletion.  You could actually have both AFAICT, wizards could choose a few powerful spells, or many less powerful ones.  In any case, changing the wizard character class is a different issue from changing a basic aspect of the game.Getting a tatoo saying "I hate hobbits" isn't rational but then it doesn't have a bearing on the tactical aspects of the game, which is I think is the area under consideration.  Off the top of my head those characters in fiction that act in strange ways during tactically important moments (Boromir) tend to be tragic heroes.  But then it's hard to say either way I guess.Sure, it means other aspects of the game will change to fit the established philosophy.  That's why I don't find it an overstatement to talk about the consequences of that.  It makes no sense to me that talk about a general practice and then only apply the change to one area of the game.  I think it's reasonable to assume that sooner, rather than later, all aspects of the game will conform to this new set of priorities.In terms of reality, "nothing" is next to everything so I'm not sure this metaphor is verifiable.  However, I find the design philosophy expressed by Wyatt's quote to be pretty substantial.  As I've said before, I don't need to see the actual implementation if I can assume that they'll accomplish what they say they want to do.  As at least one other person has remarked, by the time we see the design it will be pointless to debate it.  Perhaps it's pointless now, but hopefully a little less so.I hope.  You can't make everyone happy all of the time though.</blockquote>

Verification